You're viewing a single thread.
When I was in college I had a professor who made the argument that Norman Rockwell's work was best described as illustration rather than art. I think it was partly due to the realism and the focus on "normal" American life with a lack of interpretation or symbolism. But looking at this now I can't help but think he was totally wrong. The look on the girl's face that says "you should see the other guy," the concerned adults having a conversation in the principal's office, there is a whole story being told here in a single frame. To say this isn't art seems crazy to me.
He ended the Saturday Evening Post because he refused to ignore the civil rights era and was stonchly on the side of desegrigation and equal rights, and the post refused to ''be too political'' and stop hiring him for covers, and no one bought them without his covers.
Says quite a bit that they’d rather be broke than “woke”.
Very cool, and good to know considering the points another poster made about his art being a driving force behind the nostalgia for a Better (read: whiter) past that has ruined so many American minds over the years.
Nice
American racism is alive and kicking unfortunately
I have a print of this on wood. My mom got it from her mom. We've had it my whole life. I've moved 22 times. I've lost almost everything I've ever owned at least twice. Very few possessions make it through that many moves. But we've kept this picture the whole time. It always hangs in the kitchen, except for this time around when it hands above my bed in the living room.
The only other things we own that we've had even close to as long are a painting of Snoopy I pulled out of someone's curbside trash, a red table we got off the side of the road, and some antique pottery and glassware of grandparents that hasn't been unboxed since the 90s.
Edit to add, view from my bed:
Ignore the dust/cobwebs. I do not dust like I should.
And sometimes there are little details that escape notice until seeing one of his paintings several times; I've seen this one before and I liked it, but this time I noticed the mother's little smile, like she's proud that her daughter stood up for herself, or remembering when she once sat on that bench with a black eye, or maybe she's just amused at kids being kids. I like it more now, and I can't imagine why anyone looking at this would say it's not art.
I thought the woman inside was the school secretary. But I noticed the ribbon in the girls hair unfurled, a bit of schmutz on her knees, and the striations of the tiles.
Even the very slight grin on the principal. Sort of saying “I know we gotta punish her…but dammit did that boy deserve the beating”
Illustration major here. Art is such an overarching term that it can pretty much be used as an umbrella term for nearly anything and everything. Etymologically speaking, Illustration just means making something clear, to communicate some idea to someone else. The concept was modernized to encompass the use of pictographs, texts, and diagrams as visual aids.
All forms of illustrations technically can be classified as pieces of art, as the definitions of art vary wildly. I've always taken art to be anything that evokes an emotion novel to either the consumer of art or the producer of the art or conveys a novel idea either back at the artist or to the consumer of art, or some mixture of these. The key thing to me is novelty, which evolves and changes based off of sociocultural norms and personal experience. Again, totally my personal opinion, and fine artists in particular would be able to nitpick this idea to death. Conversations I still enjoy when I have the energy.
Rockwell comes from a very classic Americana age of illustration. Iirc he is at the tail end of the second golden age of illustration (though my knowledge on the history is very rusty). I always preferred the work of his predecessor, JD Leyendecker, and his predecessor, Alfonse Mucha. Purely from a technical standpoint, mind you. The content of their work, to be frank, I find quite banal.
As per this particular piece, it's a simple narrative piece, obviously well executed technically in oil. The narrative is classic Rockwell. I think Rockwell has been ruined for me just because his work created a nostalgia for a time that never quite existed in America. Don't get me wrong , I think Rockwell was a stand up guy, especially for his time period.
It's just that his influence over the American Art and Illustration scene eventually ended up resonating with people who aren't looking to art for anything more than familiarity, not novelty. Essentially, it's kitsch. Rockwell unintentionally created the ideal white American past that boomers currently are nostalgic for. An ideal that has had negative ramifications for those of us who have to deal with people who vehemently insist that this idyllic Rockwellian world was the great America we should all return to.
Sorry to make this political, but art, like anything, cannot be divorced from politics. And intentional or not, Rockwell has contributed to American sociopolitical sentiments in profound ways. He practically invented modern Americana. And while it has its charm, I find it exhausting to see it everywhere.
In it's worst manifestation, Rockwell's legacy ultimately resulted in producing Thomas Kinkade, America's richest, and arguably the world's most evil painter. People like to say second most, but Hitler was always a Nazi first and foremost. Calling Hitler a painter is like calling Ronald Reagan an actor. Like yes, but maybe that's not what he should be remembered for?
Anyways, the conflation between Illustration and other Artistic disciplines, as well as with differentiating between illustration and art, is a topic of discussion I find very intriguing and one rife with controversy, due in no small part to the ambiguity surrounding the definition of art in general.
Really interesting insights, and good point about the nostalgia for a past that never existed. The work of his predecessors is very nice aesthetically, and Mucha's seems much more like what that professor would have gladly called art. A lot more stylization at least. I've always held kincade's work in disdain because it struck me as the dullest pablum imaginable, but I hadn't heard he was also evil. The invidious link didn't work for me (I'm a filthy yt premium user) but I'll look up more about that for sure.
Yeah. Please keep in mind I mean no shade at Rockwell himself. I just think he had an unintended negative impact on American culture.
The video in question was part one of a Behind The Bastards Two Parter. Here are the raw links:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFBQMEn_0rw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2Jx5WDtzts
Edit: As an aside, if you want to see an artist who I think was equal parts "true artist" and "true illustrator", I'd look at Edgar Degas.
Oh cool I've been slowly catching up on btb for a while now, I just haven't made it to that one yet. It's a great podcast in general so I'll look forward to getting the dirt on him. I remember Degas from an art appreciation class but I don't immediately recognize any of the works on the image search.
I always preferred the work of his predecessor, JD Leyendecker, and his predecessor, Alfonse Mucha.
Isn't it J. C. Leyendecker?
Yes. Sorry. Late night posting 😪
I’ve always felt a similar way about his art and was surprised to see that he actually did a few political paintings, particularly some about segregation. What are your thoughts on those? While I appreciate his effort, the ones I saw didn’t seem to offer anything textually substantial beyond simply illustrating a straightforward scene that was relevant to the moment—but this is based on a fairly cursory glance
Rockefeller did make attempts to make political work towards the latter part of his career. The hard part about being an artist/celebrity of any renown is that your audience becomes sort of like your golden fetters. You can't change the content of your work less you alienate your fans and more worryingly, your patrons. I admire Rockefeller to some degree for taking a chance to address civil rights in some of his works, but theres a lot of reasons why ultimately throse pieces fell short. Rockefeller's audience at the time didn't want him to step outside of his folksy genre he had pigeonholed himself into. Its the equivalent to "I just wanted to watch my football and drink my beer man, why you'd have to bring up politics. I get enough of that elsewhere."
Additionally, in the case of illustration, sometimes your art style just limits the kinds of messages you can say effectively. Rockefeller was an illustrator whose style emphasized and romanticized sweet scenes like from a movie. There's a reason Disney's artists take so much inspiration from specific artists and illustrators with a certain romantic flair. Take a look at the sickeningly sweet pastel portrayals of the Victorian bourgeoisie from Fragonard, and imagine that style attempting to address political injustices at that time. It just doesn't work. Not unless you completely overhaul your style and the way you communicate visually can you convey the message effectively.
Rockefeller tried to use his talents to address the civil injustices of his time, but due to the preconceptions he had built up over he years around the kinds of messages that work could convey, he ultimately was unable to convey it as effectively as other artists at the time would be able to.
It may not be a fair comparison to make, but the works of Barbara Jones-Hogu were far more effective illustrative pieces that conveyed the sociopolitical sentiments of the time, partially because she was not pinned down by the limitations of what her previous works conveyed.
I would argue there is a deeper interpretation. That of the girls always told to smile to look better, yet she is obviously deshoveled and rough. But finds joy in the chaos that has ensued from her keeping to herself. The background being the stereotypical school of the time and she is there to shake up the system.
*Disheveled.
The rest, with attention, can be corrected yourselfly for clarificarity.
can be corrected yourselfly for clarificarity.
*yourself *clarificatory
I think that's because he's in the uncanny valley bordering on kitsch. And doing realism whilst everybody in art was being postmodern and abstract.
I think he's in the same vein of Jan Steen, but he was doing it in the sixties.
Art is so subjective that ANYTHING can be art. We've all seen the joke art that is a blank canvas with a spot in the middle or something. Your professor reminds me of someone who argues if a movie is a film or not.